Welcome [sustainablect.org]...Past & Present: Residential Waste 13 CT Average, 2019 US Average, 1990 The state has been actively encouraging waste reduction for 30 years or more. It

Welcome

June 11, 2020

Founding Partners, Funders and Board

Why SMART?

SMART Ways to Reduce Trash, While Saving Money and theEnvironment

Jennifer Weymouth, CT DEEP

Looming trash crisis in Connecticut

• Regional capacity for handling waste is decreasing • Majority of CT’s waste is burned at 5 waste-to-energy facilities

• The future of MIRA is uncertain – 50 years old, expensive to retrofit

• All other facilities are aging, frequent shutdowns

• There are few remaining regional landfills for residential trash

• Tip fee expected to reach $145 per ton by 2030

• Strain on capacity is leading to increased costs for towns and residents

Also, important to note:• Connecticut’s policy is self-

sufficiency (i.e. minimizing dependency on out-of-state options)

CT DEEP’s policy drivers for materials management

• Public Act 14-94 established a 60% diversion goal and rewrite of CT’s Comprehensive Materials Management Strategy (CMMS). 60% diversion means:

− improved municipal performance

− new infrastructure

− extended producer responsibility

• Save Money and Reduce Trash (SMART) has been a key policy for incentivizing waste reduction since CT’s original Solid Waste Management Plan (1991)

▪ 41% of MA’s cities and towns use SMART

▪ Average waste reduction in bag-based communities has been 44%

Massachusetts Maine

▪ 31% of ME’s 1.33 million people live in SMART towns

▪ Average waste reduction in bag-based communities has been 44%

▪ 33 additional towns considering SMART

Rhode Island

▪ 6 of RI’s 39 municipalities have SMART

▪ Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation, which handles all of RI’s solid waste, designed uniform statewide program

In addition, SMART/unit-based pricing is mandatory in MN, OR, VT, and WA

SMART is key priority in Northeast states

Reducing trash is the solution

• SMART is single most effective policy for substantially reducing waste and cutting disposal costs.• Financially prudent – saves municipalities money through avoided

disposal costs• Environmentally responsible – reduces waste and GHGs and increases

recycling• Socially responsible – reduces need to build additional facilities which

are oftentimes sited in lower income communities

• SMART is the driver that incentivizes residents to more fully utilize other programs such as diverting compostable items and textiles.

11

Sustainable CT

SMART – Save Money and Reduce Trash June 2020

Today’s Presentation

1 SMART Overview

2 Potential Impact for CT Communities

3 FAQ’s

Past & Present: Residential Waste

13

CT Average, 2019

US Average, 1990

The state has been actively encouraging waste reduction for 30 years or more. It has had some impact.

740 lbs.per person / yr

900 lbs. per person / yr

Bottle Bill (1980)

Electronics, Paint and Mattress EPR

Education Campaigns (What’s In, What’s Out)

Aggressive Waste Reduction Goals

National Packaging Innovation (downgauging, light weighting)

National Recycling Campaigns

Single-Stream Recycling

Increased Consumer Access (curbside and drop-off recycling)

Other Programs (yard waste, event recycling days, etc.)

Education & Innovation

14

2020US Average, 1990




2050

Continued Education & Innovation

Continued Education Campaigns

Better Recycling Technology

Expanded Bottle Bill

Packaging EPR

Waste Bans

Increased Single-Use Bans

Increased Access

Curbside Food Waste Collection

On the current trajectory, per capita waste should still drop some. This assumes that additional innovation, education, and other policies will hold back the expected increase in packaging waste from online shopping and convenient fast food/take out lifestyles.

Past, Present and Future: Residential Waste

Possible: Residential Waste

15





Portland, ME Today

SMART

Portland, Maine (along with 556 communities in New England) throw away 40-60% less waste with SMART programs (there are no exceptions).

Best Practice Example

How Could Connecticut Reduce Waste?

16





Portland, ME Today

SMART

Curbside food waste collection—and other new program types—can reduce per capita waste even more.

150 lbs.

SMART w/Curbside Food Waste

Curbside Food Waste Collection

Average Lbs. of Trash per Capita, CT vs. Benchmarks

17

SMART communities dispose of less residential MSW per capita than most CT cities and towns.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Bri

dge

po

rt

Wat

erb

ury

Har

tfo

rd

No

rth

Hav

en

Old

Say

bro

ok

Wat

erfo

rd

New

Bri

tain

Ellin

gto

n

We

stp

ort

Pla

invi

lle

Torr

ingt

on

Farm

ingt

on

Bu

rlin

gto

n

Me

rid

en

Led

yard

Be

rlin

Gri

swo

ld

Bra

nfo

rd

New

Lo

nd

on

East

Had

dam

We

st H

artf

ord

No

rwic

h

Man

ches

ter

Fair

fiel

d

Gre

en

wic

h

Mo

ntv

ille

Milf

ord

She

lto

n

We

st H

ave

n

Har

win

ton

East

Lym

e

Enfi

eld

Pre

sto

n

No

rth

Sto

nin

gto

n

New

Hav

en

Gro

ton

Sou

th W

ind

sor

Mid

dle

tow

n

Stam

ford

Man

sfie

ld

MA

Ave

rage

Sto

nin

gto

n

Wo

rce

ste

r

Annual Pounds of Residential MSW Disposed per CapitaMA SMART Towns(Mostly Bag-Based)

432

Note: Figures are calculated using MSW tonnage data provided by the municipalities themselves

Mansfield, CT(Variable Rate Carts)

495CT Average

740

Stonington, CT(Bag-Based)

389Worcester, MA

(Bag-Based)

324

The Current Payment Model Encourages Waste

Waste is covered in Taxes or in a flat fee from subscription hauler

1

Tax Bill

CITY OF ANYTOWN

ANYTOWN, USAPO BOX 1234

CITY OF ANYTOWN

ANYTOWN, USAPO BOX 1234

ANYTOWN, USA

Fill it Up…3

There is no economic incentive for residents to manage materials differently

Electricity Gas Water

Residents pay for most utilities based on how much they use. Trash is different: In most places, trash is the last unmetered utility.

2 Diversion is Requested

Forms of PAYT

19

PAYT programs can take many different forms.

Variable-Rate Carts (VRCs)

Residents choose from among different sizes of carts, paying more for larger carts

450 -600 +pounds per capita

Stickers/TagsResidents pay by the bag by affixing a pre-paid tag or sticker to each bag of trash.

480-600 pounds per capita

Bags or Bags in Carts

Residents dispose of waste in officialmunicipal bags. Bags can be used with manual or cart-based collection systems.

280 - 425pounds per capita

Variable Rate Cart (VRC) Approach: Example (Austin, TX)

A VRC approach incentivize residents to reduce waste by pricing different size carts at increasing levels.

Rates Pay-As-You-Throw (two tiered) Rate Structure Austin, Texas

Residential Rates

Cents Per Gallon Trash Cart Size

Monthly TrashFee

Monthly Recycling and

OrganicsFee

Total Monthly Fee

Customer Selection

Trash Can Size

24 gallon $0.16 x 24 $3.85 $11.35 $15.20 5%

32 gallon $0.16 x 32 $5.10 $11.35 $16.45 20%

64 gallon $0.16 x 64 $10.25 $11.35 $21.60 65%

96 gallon $0.25 x 96 $24.00 $11.35 $40.15 10%

• Provide multiple size cart options

• Set up a billing mechanism for homes (monthly is ideal)

• Its best if occupant of home is responsible for size selection and paying the fee

• The goal is to continue moving residents into smaller containers or reduced frequency

• Continued education is necessary

• Works with existing collection method, automated or manual – bags fit into current bins

• Cameras can easily be added to trucks for to monitor bag compliance

The PAYT Bag Approach - Overview

Residents pay a unit based fee per gallon

for disposal each week through an official town bag

Trash is collected exactly the same as

before: Same drivers, same

collection vehicles

Total department costs are reduced due to decreased

waste generation. Communities benefit from

operational savings.

A SMART Bag approach incentivizes residents to reduce waste each time they open a new bag.

21

• Select a vendor to carry inventory, ship to stores and handle retail billing

• Residents purchase bags at local retailers

• Bag cost covers the bag itself, and the disposal of waste in the bag

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

PAYT with Bags (Average 344lbs

per capita)

PAYT with variable carts plus curbside food

collection (Average 510lbs per capita)

PAYT with Variable Carts no Curbside Food

Collection (Average 560 per capita)

64 gallon Overflow Cart (Average 646lbs per

capita)

Portland Maine ranked #1, disposing of less waste per person and moving closer to Zero Waste than peer communities.

Pounds per capita Waste Disposal

Average CT municipalities without SMART – about 740 per capita

Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR) 2017 Research

23

Results: MSW Reduction of 44% on Average

23

WATERVILLE, MAINE

53% DECLINE IN WASTE

DARTMOUTH, MA59% DECLINE IN WASTE

MALDEN, MA52% DECLINE IN WASTE

SANFORD, MA40%+ DECLINE IN WASTE…TWICE

Curbside Recycling49%

(10,593 tons)

Curbside Trash73%

(19,551 tons)

Curbside Trash51%

(10,949 tons)

Comparison SMART Bags and SMART Carts?

24

Curbside Recycling27%

(7,152 tons)

Category SMART Bag Program SMART Cart Program

Waste Reduction280-425

lbs / per capita450-550

lbs / per capita

Startup ExpensesCameras and software

(Limited)

New carts and distribution of additional sizes

(could be significant)

On Going Expenses NoYes

(Monthly hh billing, cart switch outs and marketing)

SMART (unit-based pricing) is the single best way to reduce waste.

25

Program – Decreases Overall Generation – 20+%

25

0 5000 10000 15000

Raymond NH after

Raymond NH before

Natick MA after

Natick MA before

Malden MA after

Malden MA before

Marshfield MA after

Marshfield MA before

Duxbury MA after

Duxbury MA before

Waste Commodity Recycling

Unit based programs send a price signal that produces source reduction and moves materials into all other programs, increases donations and home composting.

26

In addition, unit-based pricing for solid waste is mandatory in Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, & Washington.

• 41% of municipalities use SMART.

• Average waste reduction of 44% with bag-based SMART.

Massachusetts Maine

• 31% of ME’s 1.33 million people live in SMART towns.

• Average waste reduction of 44% with bag-based SMART

Rhode Island

• 6 of RI’s 39 municipalities have some form of SMART.

• Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation (RIRRC) is designing a statewide SMART option.

SMART has a strong presence in the Northeast. The experience of municipalities in this region can be productively applied in Connecticut.

Similar Efforts in Other States

27

Europe Taiwan

• Taipei uses bag-based SMART.

− Reduced waste by 33%

− Recycling rate is >50%

South Korea

Global SMART Efforts (Selected Examples)

• ZeroWaste Europe’s 1st Category Municipalities must use SMART.

• Low annual per capita disposal (300-500 lbs.) with SMART in:

− Belgium

− Austria

− Switzerland

− Estonia

− France

− Italy

− Others

• Seoul reduced waste 42%.

SMART – Zurich Reduced Waste 41%

Japan

• Kyoto reduced waste more than 40%.

Scandinavia


1 SMART Overview


3 FAQ’s

169 Municipalities

Curbside

67

Tip Paid Taxes

64

Trash Fee

3

Subscription

102

Tip Paid in Taxes

17

Tip Paid by Haulers

85

CT Residential Waste Make Up

Communities with curbside collection are the most straightforward to implement. However, other communities have financial incentives and control mechanisms that would allow for a SMART rate structure such as subscription communities that pay tip fees through property taxes or communities where all of the waste is run through the municipal transfer station.

There are 17 (estimated) subscription communities where the tip fee is paid through taxes. These communities have an incentive to use a SMART system to prevent subsidizing waste from neighboring towns.

What impact will SMART have on Residents?

Trash Reduction Energy Savings/CO2 Reduction Town Budget Impact Household Budget Impact

$1.50 per Bag

Bag & Bag Distribution $0.31

Trash Incineration+ some operational costs

$1.19

Total $1.50

33 – gal.

$0.80 per Bag


Trash Incineration + some operational costs

$0.59

Total $0.80

SMART bag revenue, combined with disposal savings, would reduce the need for tax revenue.

What impact will SMART have on Windsor Locks?


$1,085,696

$585,024

$0

$300,672

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

No SMART With SMART

Annual Budget & Funding Sources(Using Data from Previous Slide)

Taxes Bag Revenue

Disposal Savings = $200,746

$501,000Reduction in General Fund

Expenses

What impact will SMART have on Residents?


Average Spend per Home >>Current Annual

SMART Annual

Waste Disposal (through taxes) $205 $105

Regular Trash Bags $27.00 $0

SMART Bags $0 $72

Net per HH Cost $232 $177

The average home in SMART will use less than 1 bag per week

33

Zero Disposal Costs for Haulers

33

The program would shift the true cost of waste out of the hauler fee, directly to the user through a SMART bag free.

Residential Costwithout SMART

Tip Costwith SMART

Big Little $602,366 $0

Winter Brothers $166,736 $0

United Carting Co $134,578 $0

Fairfield Sanitation Service $133,892 $0

United Home Sanitation $125,846 $0

Mat Lock Refuse $87,947 $0

Darren A. Topar Refuse & Recycling $68,517 $0

All American $6,975 $0

Sub Total $1,326,856 $0

COD $82,481 $0

Total $1,409,336 $0

Fairfield - Example Municipal Collection

Two-Tiered Rate Structure

34

How SMART Works: How the Bags Pay for Trash

$1.40 per Bag


Trash Incineration+ some operational costs

$0.99

Total $1.40

$.70 per Bag


Trash Incineration + some operational costs

$0.49

Total $0.70

33 – gal.

13- gal

Average Fairfield resident use less than one bag per week and will spend

$60 on SMART bags

35

Residential Waste Savings

35

without SMART with SMART

Residential Tons

Residential *Tip Cost

Residential Tons

Residential Bag Cost

Big Little 6,919 $602,366 3,875 $337,325

Winter Brothers 1,915 $166,736 1,072 $93,372

United Carting Co 1,545 $134,578 865 $75,363

Fairfield Sanitation Service 1,537 $133,892 861 $74,979

United Home Sanitation 1,446 $125,846 810 $70,473

Mat Lock Refuse 1,009 $87,947 565 $49,251

Darren A. Topar Refuse & Recycling 786 $68,517 440 $38,369

All American 80 $6,975 45 $3,906

COD 873 $82,481 489 $46,189

Total Cost to Residents 16,110 $1,409,336 9,022 $789,228

Tonnage reduction provides efficiency savings for haulers and financial savings for all residents. Haulers could lower prices and charge only for collection.

Fairfield - Example Municipal Collection

Two-Tiered Rate Structure

36

Case Study: Southold NY

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

CT Average

Southold

Tons of Waste Disposed Per Capita

SMART Program Description:

• Program Start Date: 1993

• Households Serviced: 25,000 year-round→ increasing to

45,000 in July/August

• Residents purchase official yellow SMART bags from over

vendors around Southold

• Bag prices:

o $2.25 for 56 gallon bag;



• Trash is placed at the curbside only in official mandated

bags; required for both self-haulers and private carters

• Recycling (Single-stream) is placed in designated

containers and is free of charge

13,520

7,500

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1993 2007

MSW

(to

ns)

Trash Reduction since SMART (Tons)

Key Program Performance Metric – Per Capita Disposal

Better than Average


1 SMART Overview


3 FAQ’s

38

With Recycling Prices on the Rise is it a Good Time to Implement SMART?

38

Frequently Asked Questions

3939

Is Recycling here to stay?

Sources ISRI, USEPA Fact and Figures, RW Beck, Environmental Research Foundation, Institute for Local Self Reliance

The recycling industry is made up of multiple sectors.

Collection

Processing (MRF))

Converting to Feedstock

Manufacturing into Product

Distribution Back to Market

Purchasing by Consumer

• The US Recycling Industry generates an economic impact 117 Billion annually • Equal to the publishing industry, dental

industry and the automotive repair industry. ISRI

• The recycling industry has seen economic growth for the past 113 months

• The waste industry generates an economic impact of 50 Billion dollars annually

• Based on the respective tonnages: • Every ton of recycling recovered from

disposal yields a positive economic benefit of $801

• Every ton of material disposed yields and economic impact of $109.

• The delta of $692, means that for every ton we dispose instead of divert there is a negative economic impact of $692.

Converting and manufacturing create between 18 and 93 jobs per every 10,000 tons recycled including: Paper, metals, plastic and glass industries ISLR

Collection and sorting alone create 10 times as

man jobs as landfill or incineration

Jobs are shifting from China back

to the US

Why Recycle Right Now?

40

The US Recycling industry is valued at 117 Billion (IRSI 2018). Markets currently have not reached the low of 2008 and 2009. They are holding steady a little below the the 18-year average.

Dec 2019: 1,600/tonApril 2020: 1460/ton

Dec 2019: $25 /tonApril 2020 $85 / ton

Dec 2019: $200 /tonApril 2020: $220 /ton

Dec, 2019 $50/ tonApril 2020: $145/tom

Duke University, Forecasting the Value of Recyclable waste Streams for a Circular Economy Transition in Orlando, FL, Resource Recycling Dec 2018

As of April 1, 2020. Due to Covid 19, Waste Management and all other commodity trade associations are calling for everyone to recycle at a time when recyclable materials are needed more than ever. “Without materials collected from homes and businesses, Waste Management says its customers that produce products such as tissue, toweling and packaging boxes for groceries and medical supplies would not have the raw materials that they need to manufacture these items.” https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/wm-recycling-covid-19/

about:blank

4141

Frequent Objections

Will the Recycling will be Contaminated?

Actually, some say recycling is less contaminated in communities with unit based pricing because

residents have an incentive to read the directions.

42

SMART Will Not Increase Recycling Contamination

• 2017 ECO Maine municipalities with PAYT have 44.8% lees waste than non-PAYT communities

• Sanford Maines has less than a 5% contamination rate

• Eco Maine “After 2.5 years of extensive tracking we have seen no correlation between increased contamination and PAYT”

• 2018 - Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corp has been charging for recycling contamination for the past 3 years. To date Middletown RI the only curbside PAYT community in the state, has never even had a warning for contamination.

• Waste Management in SW Massachusetts also claims lower recycling contamination from PAYT communities.

Eco Maine PAYT Communities

Municipality Population lbs/capita

Waterville 15,722 235

Portland 66,318 265

Windam 17,001 268

Gorham 16,381 328

Sanford 20,798 340

Cumberland 7,211 370

North Yarmout 3,565 376

SMART

non-SMAR

43

Does waste simply shift from the residential stream into the commercial stream–

43

Anticipated Objections

Bob Moylan former Commissioner of Public Works Worcester MA. “Some businesses had to

be careful about locking or securing their dumpsters behind fences, however most businesses had no issues. There was no

noticeable increase in the overall commercial waste disposed after PAYT implementation. The

City included all city facilities in the PAYT program including Police, fire etc.”

44

There must be a better way. We should study this more thoroughly and try other solutions first?

44

Frequent Objections

The State of Connecticut, as well as other states and cities around the country have worked for decades to find programs that increase

recycling and reduce waste.

SMART is the single most effective way to reduce trash while also saving money.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

2016 2017 SMART

MSW Recycling

26%

74%

26%

Year to date comparison

74%

West Hartford Switch from Bi-weekly to Weekly Recycling

Compared to SMART

46

SMART: Big Impact

46

10 Year Estimated SMART Results:

80,000 tons

$7 million in disposal savings

Westport banned plastic bags about 10 years ago. Banning plastic bags is also a difficult political action. Although the ban was important for multiple reasons, it’s effect on waste volume is minimal.

10-Year Estimated Plastic Bag Ban Results:

390 tons

$27,300 in disposal savings

47

This information does not tell the entire picture. What about programs that failed?

47

Frequent Objections

There are hundreds of SMART bag programs around the world.

Only a handful of programs that have been discontinued. Two are located in Connecticut. The programs were discontinued for

political reasons, not because of poor results.

48

Case Study: East Lyme, CT

The East Lyme Selectman Decided to Discontinue the Program in 1998 for political reasons

• When East Lyme’s Selectman discontinued the program, trash went up from 4,571 tons (1997) to 7,179 tons (1998).

• East Lyme’s current per capita trash is 650.

• Stonington implemented the program at the same time as East Lyme, has a similar demographic make up, and nearly the same population. Stonington’s current per capita trash is 389.

• Stonington had a referendum and the strong majority of residents chose to keep the program.

• Stonington has saved approximately 6.5 Million dollars since the program’s inception.

49

Case Study: Columbia CT

Columbia voted at a Town Hall Meeting to Eliminate the Program

29,439.62

12,947.05

0.00

5,000.00

10,000.00

15,000.00

20,000.00

25,000.00

30,000.00

2009 2010

Co

sts

& F

ee

s in

Do

llars

($

)

MSW Hauling Costs & Tipping Fees (Sept. thru Dec)

Program Results:

• Municipal Solid Waste Decreased by 54%

• MSW Hauling Costs and tipping fees reduced by

49%

• Recycling hauling costs and tipping fees reduced

by $7,481.72 in just four months

• Bag Revenue exceeded previous expectations:

o $25,000 was budgeted for the entire 6

month trial and, only 4 months into the

trial, net bag revenues exceeded this

number at $28,000

• Recycling rate increased from 27% to 41%

• Despite the SWRAC recommendations, and

overall program results, the town of Columbia

voted to eliminate the program at a local town

meeting in February 2011

50

My neighbors will not comply and therefore it will cost me more and not them.

50

Frequent Objections

Compliance from neighboring state programs, as well as Stonington, is approximately 99%.

Studies also show that there is no notable increase in illegal dumping.

51

How Can the Town Enforce the SMART Program?

51

SMART compliance is very high and enforcement is usually not a challenge.

Most compliance issues happen during the first 6 weeks of a new program.

Most communities manage these with existing staff.

• Additional support can be provided if compliance is a concern.

A tiered enforcement system is recommended where one is not in place.

In all instances, the cost of enforcement has been a fraction of the financial savings related to SMART.

Sanford, ME – City-Reported Compliance Rates

Week 1 96.3% Week 6 99.65%

Week 2 98.52% Week 7 99.79%

Week 3 99.52% Week 8 99.76%

Week 4 99.38% Week 9 99.94%

Week 5 99.43% Week 10 99.86%

52

Automated Collection Typical Ongoing Compliance Process

Official bags are placed in automated carts for collection

Trucks are equipped with video cameras mounted to the hopper (standard on most automated trucks)

Camera clearly shows what goes into hopper – driver can easily see

bags on camera inside truck

Loads can easily be spot checked during start up phase.

Driver pushes one button on Tablet / app (or similar solution) if non-compliant

bags are spotted

Non-compliant addresses are auto-uploaded to central database so notices (or citations) can go out.

See video

about:blank

53

Residents will not like it.

53

Frequent Objections

Actually, residents like the program once they have given it a try.

What Residents Think About SMART

In a Public Policy Polling survey of ~1,000 PAYT participants from 10 communities, significant majorities said they are satisfied with PAYT, see it as fair and easy, and believe it is effective.

Best Practice: Mansfield

Best Practice: Mansfield

Weekly Trash Service

Levels

Monthly

Charge

%

Households

20 Gallon Can $16.00 25%

35 Gallon Can $22.75 39%

64 Gallon Can $29.00 28%

96 Gallon Can $35.75 7%

160 Gallon Can $41.75 1%

Mansfield offers curbside residential trash and recycling collection with variable cart sizes. • The carts are priced so that residents choose a smaller size and are

incentivized to reduce waste. • Total of 2,549 households participate.• Trash service includes one 64-gallon can for recycling.

20 Gallon Trash Can, 64 Gallon Recycling Can

Mansfield residents generate approximately 480 pounds per capita.

Best Practice: Stonington

Stonington’s SMART program covers both household and commercial waste utilizing town-issued bags and dumpsters, both priced by volume. • Total of 7,442 households participate• The unit-based fees cover approximately 98% of the solid waste program.

Results

• Stonington has achieved over $7 million in avoided disposal costs since program inception.

• Stonington residents generate 389 pounds per capita.

How to Get Your Community on Board

7.5. Report Materials Management Data and Reduce Waste



7.6. Implement Save Money and Reduce Trash (SMART) Program

SMART Implementation Checklist



Per Capita Disposal

Calculation

Action Item: Earns 5 points

Type in available data in cells with red boxes; gray

cells produce calculations through formulas.

Town: Fiscal Year Being Calculated:

Type in available data in cells with red boxes.

(i) Tons (T) from Curbside

(ii) Tons (T) from Transfer

Station

(iii) Tons (T) from Other

Source

Total Tons (T) 0

Total Converted to

Pounds (lbs)0

2. Go to the United States Census Bureau’s Quick Facts website:

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts

a. In the search box on the top left, type in the name of your

town. If more than one entry comes up, please select the one

with the county name included.

3. Under the “Family & Living Arrangements” section,

determine your town or city’s average “Persons per household”:

________________ (B)

(B)

4. Go to the United States Census Bure au’s Explore Census Data

website: https://data.census.gov

a. Click on Advanced Search

b. On the Table ID line, type DP04

c. Click Search on the lower right of the screen

d. Click Filter in the upper left of the screen

e. On the search line, begin typing the name of the City or Town

f. A series of options will appear with check boxes. Check the

box next to your City or Town

g. Click Hide on upper right of screen

5. Under “Housing Occupancy,” determine the percent of

“Occupied Housing Units for your municipality” and record the

number as a decimal (e.g., record 95.6% as 0.956):

________________ (C)

(C)

(i) 1-unit, detached

(ii) 1-unit, attached

(iii) 2 units

(iv) 3 or 4 units

(v) 4 units and above (if

applicable)

Total housing units

7. Multiply the decimal version of the percent occupied

housing units (C) by the total number of housing structures

from which residential class is collected (D): ________________

(E)

(E) -

8. Multiply that number (E) by the average persons per

household (B): ________________ (F)(F) -

9. Divide the waste total (A) by the number in (F). - Residential Solid Waste Generated Per Capita

Per Year (in pounds)

6. Scroll down a little further and click on the “Units in

Structure” section. Look at the estimated number of units for

each of the following:

1-unit, detached: ________________ (i)

1-unit, attached: ________________ (ii)

2 units: ________________ (iii)

3 or 4 units: ________________ (iv)

4 units and above: _____________(v) (if applicable)

Total: ________________ (D)***

***This number represents the total number of homes where

residential (vs. commercial) trash is collected from. In some

community residential pick-up may occur in unit structures

greater than 4. If so, then include this in (v).

(D)Units in

Structure

Average Persons Per Household

% of Occupied Housing Units

(A)

1. Determine the total residential solid waste generated for

your municipality or town, in pounds, for the fiscal year (July

1st to June 30th).

(i) For towns and cities that use a subscription service for

curbside collection, gather data from each hauler that holds a

permit to collect waste in your community. For municipal or

contract curbside collection, use residential tons associated

with the households in the program.

(ii) If you have a transfer station that collects residential waste

then include that number in the Transfer Station field.

Total Tons is converted to Pounds by mulitplying by 2000.

NOTE: If you know the number of homes picked up in your community, please use that number in cell E24 to override the

forumula in response to question 7 on line 25 of this spreadsheet. If you don't have the exact number, please go through the

exercise below to estimate the number of households.

Worksheet for Calculation of Residential Solid Waste Generated PeA1:E27

Total

Residential

Solid Waste

Generated (lbs)

(fiscal year, July

1st-June 30th)

See numbered directions on left for how to obtain

needed data.





(i) Tons (T) from Curbside 5,014


Station


Source

Total Tons (T) 5,014

Total Converted to

Pounds (lbs)10,028,000








________________ (B)

(B) Average Persons Per Household

(A)



1st to June 30th).









Worksheet for Calculation of Residential Solid Waste Generated Per Capita for Cities and

Towns with Populations of 5,000 or more*

Windsor Locks

Total

Residential

Solid Waste

Generated (lbs)

(fiscal year, July

1st-June 30th)

2019/2020


needed data.





(i) Tons (T) from Curbside 5,014


Station


Source

Total Tons (T) 5,014

Total Converted to

Pounds (lbs)10,028,000








________________ (B)

(B) 2.63Average Persons Per Household

(A)



1st to June 30th).









Worksheet for Calculation of Residential Solid Waste Generated Per Capita for Cities and

Towns with Populations of 5,000 or more*

Windsor Locks

Total

Residential

Solid Waste

Generated (lbs)

(fiscal year, July

1st-June 30th)

2019/2020


needed data.














________________ (C)

(C)



(iii) 2 units

(iv) 3 or 4 units


applicable)

Total housing units -




(E)

(E) 5,316


household (B): ________________ (F)(F) 13,077

9. Divide the waste total (A) by the number in (F). 766.82 Residential Solid Waste Generated Per Capita





1-unit, detached: ________________ (i)

1-unit, attached: ________________ (ii)

2 units: ________________ (iii)

3 or 4 units: ________________ (iv)


Total: ________________ (D)***





(D)Units in

Structure


















________________ (C)

(C)



(iii) 2 units

(iv) 3 or 4 units


applicable)

Total housing units -




(E)

(E) 5,316


household (B): ________________ (F)(F) 13,077






1-unit, detached: ________________ (i)

1-unit, attached: ________________ (ii)

2 units: ________________ (iii)

3 or 4 units: ________________ (iv)


Total: ________________ (D)***





(D)Units in

Structure


















________________ (C)

(C) 94.60%

(i) 1-unit, detached 3,776

(ii) 1-unit, attached 368

(iii) 2 units 271

(iv) 3 or 4 units 224


applicable)

Total housing units 4,639




(E)

(E) 4,388


household (B): ________________ (F)(F) 10,796






1-unit, detached: ________________ (i)

1-unit, attached: ________________ (ii)

2 units: ________________ (iii)

3 or 4 units: ________________ (iv)


Total: ________________ (D)***





(D)Units in

Structure


















________________ (C)

(C) 94.60%

(i) 1-unit, detached 3,776

(ii) 1-unit, attached 368

(iii) 2 units 271

(iv) 3 or 4 units 224


applicable)

Total housing units 4,639




(E)

(E) 4,388


household (B): ________________ (F)(F) 10,796






1-unit, detached: ________________ (i)

1-unit, attached: ________________ (ii)

2 units: ________________ (iii)

3 or 4 units: ________________ (iv)


Total: ________________ (D)***





(D)Units in

Structure





Documents

Welcome [sustainablect.org]...Past & Present: Residential Waste 13 CT Average, 2019 US Average, 1990 The state has been actively encouraging waste reduction for 30 years or more. It